 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/shocking-footage-shows-cyclist-confronted-by-angry-pedestrian-at-zebra-crossing_uk_57ee6cbce4b00e5804f11a10 ]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/shocking-footage-shows-cyclist-confronted-by-angry-pedestrian-at-zebra-crossing_uk_57ee6cbce4b00e5804f11a10[/url]
For me, the cyclist in this film is a tool and giving everyone else a bad name. Of course, it's worth noting that the several other cyclists all stopped. Maybe our Lycra-clad hero was on a KOM.
Both idiots (as seems to be normal in these videos)
Hmmm, cyclist was being a bit of a cock but if the pedestrain guy had kept going (rather than go back for a confrontation), there actually would've been a gap for him to pass through before the ped from the LHS got over there.
Cyclist was being a tool.
It's not anti cyclist to say that people who can do most damage, or can effect the outcome of an accident the greatest should be the most responsible.
agreed [s]bob[/s],
and you just know the phrase "I missed you didn't I ?" was on its way
Er, that looks set up to me!
Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.
That's an interesting point wwaswas. If it isn't a set up, it shows how people's preconceptions work.
Aye - it's like cyclists only threatening to batter a driver if they're skinny, innit 😀Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.
Anyway, pedestrian is clealry wearing a flat cap or possibly even beret, so I'm oot
The cyclist was going too fast too furious.
...and giving everyone else a bad name...
He's not giving me a bad name.
He's not giving me a bad name.
+1
It's never a them versus us that's the sort of "outrage" that the media love.
Lucky someone caught this shocking event on cam.
Please can someone edit that with a cut to some Benny Hill or Police Academy Pink Flamingo music as they 'dance'....
[quote=wwaswas ]Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.
THIS
Both were foolish cyclist should have slowed walker should not have stepped back into danger
Pedestrian wanted the confrontation and the cyclist was going too fast
Cyclist mainly responsible for it all but pedestrians ignorance of one and rant at the other is interesting
Er, that looks set up to me!
+1
Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the {[b]same[/b]} bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.
Wins the Krypton Factor observational round! 😉
Would hardly call it shocking footage. Just a daily altercation. I have been involved in worse with cars and pedestrian crossings. I would rather be hit by a bike than a car so maybe we should be concentrating on cars here but the media aren't going to do that are they...
'Shocking', 'Angry', 'Confrontation'.
You bloody southerners sure are a sensitive bunch.
walker should not have stepped back into danger
Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.
of course I am aware of how they work as a pedestrian you cross them rather than stop direction and then go backwards into danger. Why what do you do on them?
Are you suggesting that if he had not stopped and reversed his movement they would have met each other?
I am not NOT blaming the cyclist here i am simply stating that the pedestrian saw him and then purposefully went backwards to make sure they hit each other/met. He did not do this with a taxi mind.
Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.
Did you even read the article?
Not sure it quite rated as "shocking" really did it?
Too much bloody helmet/dash cam footage floating around these days, who really gives a flying **** about half this crap anyway? Piss poor click-bait 1/10...
The cyclist clearly wasn't going to hit the pedestrian, but it was very much tool-ish behaviour (both against the rules, and it's not fun to have people whizz close by you, even on a bike).
That said, it is absolutely 100% routine for motor vehicles to do this where I live (admittedly not the UK - a northern European country - but I imagine it's not that rare in the UK either, given that a taxi does exactly the same thing in the very same video, as others have pointed out). Not in a "this happens to me at least once a day" way - it's absolutely standard for cars to pass like this pretty much every single time I cross the road in the presence of a car. They either keep going without slowing if they decide that they're going to just miss you, or if they are forced to stop when you cross, they then rev up and scrape by you as soon as you're a micrometer out of the way, even when you're still very much on the crossing. I've had people do it when my small son is crossing the road holding my hand, nearly hitting him; I've had a large lorry do it to me while pushing me son in a pram across the road.
If people did what the pedestrian in this video did to all the motor vehicles acting like the cyclist, they wouldn't get a lot of outraged sympathetic media attention, they'd probably be taken away by the men in white coats. Yet it is incredibly prevalent and far more dangerous.
(The cyclist was still a tool though).
Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.
I believe it is acceptable/legal/safe for cyclists to pass at a sensible speed* behind the final pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Only motorised vehicles are required to remain stationary until the pedestrian has cleared the crossing**.
*which this cyclist didn't do
**which most drivers don't do
Love the pathetically righteous and silly legalistic responses from the usual wasters on this forum.
The cyclist does nothing wrong here, the pedestrian is probably a member on this forum. The moron is lucky he didn't try and stop me like that, because he wouldn't have pushed me like that.
Reading things like this really makes me feel like screaming and putting a saucepan on my head and banging it with a loud spoon.
If people did what the pedestrian in this video did to all the motor vehicles acting like the cyclist, they wouldn't get a lot of outraged sympathetic media attention, they'd probably be taken away by the men in white coats. Yet it is incredibly prevalent and far more dangerous.
Or of course by an ambulance, as you might well be seriously hurt/dead. I still think the cyclist was very much in the wrong, but the fact that the pedestrian was able to block him without being hurt or even hit, or without the cyclist coming of his bike, shows that the bike really wasn't going very fast. If I tried the same thing to many of the cars that routinely whizz by me as I cross the road, I'd be in hospital or the morgue.
Stupid to walk in front of a road user that obviously isn't going to stop.
Better to hang back and give them a boot as they pass. 🙂
Clearly the cyclist was going to pass behind the pedestrian, it's very much a judgment call on whether he was actually doing anything wrong legally, as the police comment indicates for anyone who actually bothered to read what they had to say about it.
The pedestrian clearly assaulted the cyclist, of course. There's no doubt at all about that.
On the legal front this has been done to death on Twitter with input from a lawyer.
The law is that traffic must " give precedence" to pedestrians which both the taxi and cyclist did. Both were too close and aggressive but not actually illegal.
Crossing law is crap. Pedestrians are told not to start crossing until traffic has stopped. Traffic doesn't have to give way until a ped has stepped onto the crossing.
The pedestrian clearly assaulted the cyclist, of course. There's no doubt at all about that.
By being on the crossing in front of the cyclist??? You know the bed has right of way don't you?
This forum cracks me up sometimes.
Using the road (159 to 203)
The Highway Code rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.Rule 195
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
Unless we're going to redefine the meaning of "give way" the cyclist was in the wrong. End of.
Cyclists are allowed to pass freely behind pedestrians on zebra crossings, which is what would have happened if the pedestrian hadn't stopped and pushed/grabbed the cyclist.
See: The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 25(1)
Arguably, the cyclist was cutting it a bit fine and should have slowed and allowed more room. That's my judgement but others (including a court) might disagree with it.
The pedestrian clearly assaulted the cyclist, of course. There's no doubt at all about that.
By being on the crossing in front of the cyclist??? You know the bed has right of way don't you?This forum cracks me up sometimes.
Have you actually watched the video?
I think I would have tutted.
Unless we're going to redefine the meaning of "give way" the cyclist was in the wrong. End of.
I think you're redefining the meaning. Had the pedestrian not deliberately turned around, the cyclist had given way by aiming to pass behind him. Give way doesn't mean stop.
Give way doesn't mean stop.
No, but it does mean, don't ride into them. I think you failed giving way if you ride into someone.
I mean, it doesn't really matter that pedestrian turned around to be confrontational, he would be perfectly entitle to change his mind half way across. Or, what about where someone slipped and fell back into the path of the cyclist. Or if a jogger suddenly started crossing at speed behind the first pedestrian, having seen traffic give way as it should.
Cyclist didn't give way like he as required to do.
Ah, but you're an uncouth scot. I'd have looked both down my nose AND over the top of my glasses at him but I certainly wouldn't have [i]tutted[/i]Northwind - Member
I think I would have tutted
thecaptain, you'll have to help me out.
25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
This says as long as the pedestrian is on the crossing (any part of the crossing) he has precedence. Where is your reference for cyclist being able to pass behind pedestrians on crossings?
Very disappointing. A far cry from Ronnie Pickering standards.
Zebra crossings would be infinitely improved by the random deployment of real Zebras.
Wrong thread
Passing behind is the standard interpretation of giving precedence. Even the policeman quoted in the original article states it. You did read the article didn't you?
Here, let me quote the police spokesman for the hard of understanding:
"A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration)"
The issue is not simply riding over the crossing when there is a pedestrian on it (which the law has no problem with), it's whether the cyclist was too fast and close to be giving "due care and onsideration". He was clearly going to ride behind the ped who would not have been impeded in any way had he just continued walking in a normal manner rather than deliberately setting out to confront the cyclist. Note that he didn't actually ride into or knock down the pedestrian even after the latter's unanticipated behaviour.
BTW are you prepared to acknowledge that the pedestrian assaulted the cyclist?
W@nker meets W@nker sums that video up doesn't it?
Standard "this is the law" response from a Sargent, that is the minimum rank in the police that actually knows anything about the law, response.
Course they only respond to events of VERY serious crime, or situations from which they can extort money from someone, anything else gets a reference number.
Arguably, the cyclist was cutting it a bit fine and should have slowed and allowed more room. That's my judgement but others (including a court) might disagree with it.
I doubt it. No consideration at all from guy on the bike attempting to pass through a tiny gap at speed.
Personally I don't think the letter of the law should be applied to cyclists. Quite happy to see laws being bent when it's done considerately. But that wasn't, and the guy was well within his rights to confront him.
Even the policeman quoted in the original article states it. You did read the article didn't you?
Yes, which is why I know it was Met Spokesman and not policeman as you have incorrectly written. It also says for the that information was obtained by the Mail Online. So it's at least 3rd hand and no one was credited.
I don't trust that source and want you to show me where it is written that cyclist can pass behind someone on a crossing, but you can't.
Where was the 'shocking footage' I was expecting a proper dust up, bag o'shite.
I don't trust that source and want you to show me where it is written that cyclist can pass behind someone on a crossing, but you can't.
This is also third hand, but I saw a screenshot of this on Twitter yesterday. Can't find the tweet now, of course, but I remember it being credible. It's difficult to Google, as most hits refer to the legality of using the crossing by bike.
Meanwhile, the drivers of HGVs and other motorised vehicles continue to maim and kill in huge numbers while cyclists kill and maim almost nobody.
The interpretation of 'giving precedence' is a new one on me - I was always taught that I had to let peds clear the crossing completely before driving through. All these years I could have just waited for the old biddies to get 2/3rds of the way across then motor through.
Given the total unpredictability of pedestrians around here, I wouldn't want rely on them keeping going to claim the spare metre behind them. Vehicles, including bikes, passing close to sheep-like peds on crossings is always a bad idea.
The interpretation of 'giving precedence' is a new one on me - I was always taught that I had to let peds clear the crossing completely before driving through. All these years I could have just waited for the old biddies to get 2/3rds of the way across then motor through.
IIRC, motorised vehicles [i]do[/i] have to wait until the crossing is clear before moving off. It's bicycles that don't have to.
Given the total unpredictability of pedestrians around here, I wouldn't want rely on them keeping going to claim the spare metre behind them. Vehicles, including bikes, passing close to sheep-like peds on crossings is always a bad idea.
Which is why the cyclist in the video was in the wrong; they were too close behind the pedestrian, and going too fast. But, it's a judgement call. As pointed out on the first page, in the video a taxi does exactly the same to a pedestrian on the other carriageway and nobody blinks.
I can't see any differentiation between motorised and non-motorised vehicles in the regulation quoted above. I wonder what bit of the regulations the police spokesman is referring to?
The bloke was probably a bit miffed that the taxi had just gone past him when he was still on the crossing and then saw the cyclist coming and thought "**** this they're all out to get me......"
I think the taxi and the cyclist were both in the wrong and should have waited longer. Just as all the other cyclist's and the van in the video did.
I'd have called him a **** (rhymes with bat, no not cat....) in a slightly raised voice.
walker should not have stepped back into danger
Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.
I once got shouted at by a pedestrian for not slowing down for a zebra crossing which I went through just after he'd stepped onto the kerb. Wonder if it was the same bloke.
See how many people's day one dickhead in a suit can effect! By stepping back in to the cyclist, he delays all the people who stop to see what's going on, and now, I've been stopped from looking at something slightly more interesting to comment on what a pillock he was.
thecaptain - Member
Passing behind is the standard interpretation of giving precedence. Even the policeman quoted in the original article states it. You did read the article didn't you?Here, let me quote the police spokesman for the hard of understanding:
"A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration)"
The issue is not simply riding over the crossing when there is a pedestrian on it (which the law has no problem with), it's whether the cyclist was too fast and close to be giving "due care and consideration". He was clearly going to ride behind the ped who would not have been impeded in any way had he just continued walking in a normal manner rather than deliberately setting out to confront the cyclist. Note that he didn't actually ride into or knock down the pedestrian even after the latter's unanticipated behaviour.
I like this interpretation. All the time on a bike, you [i]time[/i] things so you can keep your momentum - even more so when trying to make progress in a busy city. Imagine if everyone stopped and confronted you - pulling out close behind a car on a roundabout - he stops and backs into you "You're supposed to GIVE WAY!" Cyclist was doing normal cyclist things, bloke in suit was a moron. And I won't be persuaded otherwise 😛
Pedestrian was in wrong as well - "No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch"
[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19/made ]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19/made[/url]
I can't see any differentiation between motorised and non-motorised vehicles in the regulation quoted above. I wonder what bit of the regulations the police spokesman is referring to?
Possibly reg 24 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/24/made
The interpretation of 'giving precedence' is a new one on me - I was always taught that I had to let peds clear the crossing completely before driving through.
And that's the right thing to do - there's very rarely enough space to comfortably pass a pedestrian on a crossing in a car without being uncomfortably close. On a bike it's a bit different - you can give a load of space (which this rider didn't do - though he was going slow enough to stop).
Lawyer [url= https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/782184360002875392 ]Martin Porter[/url] notes that precedence is a flexible concept but basically 'have not impeded'. Cyclist didn't impede ped stepping onto crossing from left and wouldn't have impeded guy who obstructed.
Laws, laws, laws....
How about just common decency, why can't we all just get along.........
Hippy.
😀
he would be perfectly entitle to change his mind half way across.
Indeed. Cyclists and in particular drivers should be aware that small children tend to do this fairly often. Also parents when they inevitably drop one of the million things they're trying to carry.
he would be perfectly entitle to change his mind half way across.
Indeed. Cyclists and in particular drivers should be aware that small children tend to do this fairly often. Also parents when they inevitably drop one of the million things they're trying to carry.
That would be in breach of [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19/made ]regulation 19 of section IV of The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions, 1997[/url]: "[i]No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.[/i]". Pedestrians, especially parents, should be aware that cyclists might be, perfectly legally, riding behind them.
Doing something like stopping suddenly to turn around is illegal. As is grabbing hold of somebody in a threatening manner.
😉
Doing something like stopping suddenly to turn around is illegal
We can argue over the fine detail of the law, or we can do what is prudent and courteous.
I'll stick with giving pedestrians plenty of space.
We can argue over the fine detail of the law, or we can do what is prudent and courteous.I'll stick with giving pedestrians plenty of space.
It's not prudent or courteous to suddenly grab a moving cyclist, is it?
For clarity: I think the cyclist was a dick, but I also think the pedestrian was a dick, and the taxi driver on the other side of the road was a dick.
All the media outlets who ran the story but treat dangerous driving as "just something that happens" are dicks too.
It's not prudent or courteous to suddenly grab a moving cyclist, is it?
1)I don't recall arguing that it was.
2)The incident would not have occurred had the cyclist given the pedestrian a more appropriate amount of space.
The incident would not have occurred had the cyclist given the pedestrian a more appropriate amount of space.
Absolutely true.
I will use this as a defence when I smash up the car belonging to a driver who passed me too closely.
The pedestrian was lucky it wasn't the dude [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/if-you-only-watch-one-video-of-a-man-having-a-tantrum-today ]This Thread[/url] that he decided to turn on.
I'm pretty surprised the pedestrian didn't get chinned, he was looking for trouble whether he was in the right or not. I'd have been well pissed off if he'd done that to me and dunno how I would have reacted with the adrenaline pumping.
Absolutely true.I will use this as a defence when I smash up the car belonging to a driver who passed me too closely.
I'm not sure why you're so keen to set up a strawman.
Anyway, you'd think that close passes would make cyclists more aware of the need give pedestrians adequate space.
I've just watched the video again:
The pedestrian is slowing down and looking toward the cyclist as he enters the frame. Had he continued walking at his original pace, he'd have taken another couple of steps and the cyclist would have been a metre or so behind him at the point he passed. That's more than the typical car-bike overtake, with a much smaller speed/mass difference.
The cyclist was able to stop before he hit the pedestrian, implying that his speed of approach was low enough for the manoeuvre he was attempting.
I'd also not spotted previously that it was the same pedestrian who was almost hit by the taxi on the other side of the road, but doesn't react.
I'm not sure why you're so keen to set up a strawman.
I'm not, I'm being facetious.
Anyway, you'd think that close passes would make cyclists more aware of the need give pedestrians adequate space.
See above. The cyclist was going to give adequate space.
See above. The cyclist was going to give adequate space.
The cyclist was relying on the pedestrian continuing at the same pace in order to make the gap. Which is really stupid.
The pedestrian is slowing down and looking toward the cyclist as he enters the frame.
The pedestrian may well have thought, not unreasonably, that he was about to be hit by the cyclist.
Had he continued walking at his original pace, he'd have taken another couple of steps and the cyclist would have been a metre or so behind him at the point he passed. That's more than the typical car-bike overtake, with a much smaller speed/mass difference.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The cyclist was relying on the pedestrian continuing at the same pace in order to make the gap. Which is really stupid.
How do you merge with traffic coming off a motorway slip road?
The cyclist stopped before hitting the pedestrian so they allowed an adequate safety margin.
How do you merge with traffic coming off a motorway slip road?
I look for a gap just slightly bigger than my car and swerve into it.
The cyclist stopped before hitting the pedestrian so they allowed an adequate safety margin.
Yes, I always feel safe crossing the road if a car or bike doesn't hit me thanks to an emergency stop.
Yes, I always feel safe crossing the road if a car or bike doesn't hit me thanks to an emergency stop.
To continue with my car overtaking bike example: if as a car was preparing to overtake me on my bike I suddenly swerved to the right and stopped, I'd be very happy that the car stopped before hitting me. I'd have done something silly, and the car driver would have been in the right.
I doubt that a video of this happening would have made the Huffington Post after going viral on social media. There then probably wouldn't be drivers on a driving forum blaming the driver.
Cyclist clearly in the wrong, did the equivalent of a punishment pass.
Just because he didn't hit the ped doesn't make it ok, he should have slowed down earlier, anticipated, and not be so close as startle the ped.
Sound like a familiar compliant cyclists have about cars overtaking them?
Pedestrian then proceeded to act like a dick, but it wasn't exactly unprovoked.
I like how it's described as "Shocking Footage" 😕 No it isn't.
[i]did the equivalent of a punishment pass.[/i]
You've watched a different video to me havent you?
Did the equal of timing a gap. Nothing like a punishment pass. Of course he anticipated, just not that the ped was going to be a self-righteous plonker. And the bloke wasn't startled! 😆
Nope, I've watched it a few times, that's my opinion. Ok the suit was probably more incensed than startled.
There's no reason the cyclist couldn't have slowed a bit, been a bit more courteous and there would have been no issue.
I'm not defending the actions of the pedestrian, but the siuation was created by the cyclist.
Elsewhere, the was a [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lucky-escape-for-driver-who-flattened-bus-stop-after-attempting-risky-overtake-in-north-london-a3359241.html ]lucky escape for Volvo driver who flattened bus stop in north London[/url].
Compare and contrast the reporting.
That report beggars belief, as if the bus stop ever stood a chance, never mind anyone who may have been waiting for a bus.
The report suggests the volvo was avoiding a collision by plowing into a bus stop, but that's conjecture as typically there's precious little context in the report.
context. that crossing is just after parliament square where the new light system holds you for HOURS. it then releases you across the junction which doesn't have a pedestrian crossing at the other side but a 100 foreign tourists all looking the wrong way step out in front of you anyway. So the cyclist will have just had 47 near misses just like this one 10 seconds before getting here and will have a heart rate of 210bpm. Really that pedestrian is lucky he wasn't murdered.